Stacking extra attack

[Skrum]

Each martial class gets its own flavour of "better weapon damage".

For Fighters, it's multiple iterations of Extra Attack.

For Barbarians, it's Rage damage and Brutal Critical (yes, I know Brutal Critical sucks)

For Rogues, it's Sneak Attack

For Monks, it's Martial Arts damage dice and Flurry of Blows


Paladins get Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite, meanwhile Rangers get nothing because **** 'em, apparently.

This is true on paper but as you note the in-game effectiveness of each of these abilities is pretty uneven.

Barbarians barely scale at all beyond level 5. Rogues suffer their entire career with only getting one attack (and being bonus action starved). Rangers get...well not a whole lot, as you note. Monks take way too long to get a ki pool that actually lets them function. Fighters and paladins have the best options, with paladins in particular benefiting enormously from the "not recommended but fairly common 5MWD."

Call me crazy but the classes should be updated to account for how they actually perform in game, and for how people actually play.

I find it wild that full casters follow a very specific formula, making those classes all very good and able to stack with each other, while each martial class is a "lets reinvent the wheel 5 times."

[GeneralVryth]

This is true on paper but as you note the in-game effectiveness of each of these abilities is pretty uneven.

Barbarians barely scale at all beyond level 5. Rogues suffer their entire career with only getting one attack (and being bonus action starved). Rangers get...well not a whole lot, as you note. Monks take way too long to get a ki pool that actually lets them function. Fighters and paladins have the best options, with paladins in particular benefiting enormously from the "not recommended but fairly common 5MWD."

Call me crazy but the classes should be updated to account for how they actually perform in game, and for how people actually play.

I find it wild that full casters follow a very specific formula, making those classes all very good and able to stack with each other, while each martial class is a "lets reinvent the wheel 5 times."

You can't re-design for the 5MWD or you screw all long rest classes when you do end up with a long day, and basically guarantee you only get 5MWDs, which just leads to a more bland game. Also, 5MWDs are one of those things that self propagate, if intelligent players believe they can get away with it, they will, if they they believe that it's going to be a long day then they act like it even if it ends up being a 5MWD. The better option is a lot of what is happening in 5.5. Reducing the ability to rapidly burn resources (Paladins only being able to smite once a round, which got a lot of hate on here when proposed) and ways for short rest classes to quickly get back resources so they fair better in short work days.

Rogues are an interesting beast. I haven't played one in a sit down game, my experience with them is mostly Solasta, BG3, and my own experimentations. They seem to preform really well when they can get advantage (which they can pretty easily generate through bonus action hiding in the video games), so I wonder how much them feeling bad is them either being played badly, or just having gaining advantage be much harder in a sit down game.

That thought leads nicely in to why Extra Attack feels so important. In general most attacks are going to be made with a 40% to 80%? hit chance? If you get 2 rolls of the dice (Extra Attack sans Adv., or one attack with Adv.), that's 64% to 96% chance of doing damage with a smaller chance of doing double damage with Extra Attack. Which means most turns the martial will have done something if they took the attack action. Which leads to another thought, seeing more (or even some, since I can't think of any non-spell example) abilities that can be used on a miss or near miss attack. They wouldn't add to peak output in a turn, but they reduce the odds of the turn overall being wasted. These would likely slot in nicely for the Fighter (at least if you assume their flavor as weapon master), but can easily make sense to some varying degree on most martials.

As a final note, full casters don't stack nearly as well as you would think with multi-classing. In practice the combined caster level for spell slots when multi-classing is actually a nerf on full casters. Without proper upcasting those additional higher level slots you don't have spells for aren't nearly as powerful as the many additional lower level slots you would logically get if you didn't have that multi-classing mechanic.

[Skrum]

You can't re-design for the 5MWD or you screw all long rest classes when you do end up with a long day, and basically guarantee you only get 5MWDs, which just leads to a more bland game. Also, 5MWDs are one of those things that self propagate, if intelligent players believe they can get away with it, they will, if they they believe that it's going to be a long day then they act like it even if it ends up being a 5MWD. The better option is a lot of what is happening in 5.5. Reducing the ability to rapidly burn resources (Paladins only being able to smite once a round, which got a lot of hate on here when proposed) and ways for short rest classes to quickly get back resources so they fair better in short work days.

My preferred solution here is for all classes to be short rest or even encounter-based. That way there would be no pressure on the DM to run 7 medium encounters in order to drain the characters for the big encounter.

Rogues are an interesting beast. I haven't played one in a sit down game, my experience with them is mostly Solasta, BG3, and my own experimentations. They seem to preform really well when they can get advantage (which they can pretty easily generate through bonus action hiding in the video games), so I wonder how much them feeling bad is them either being played badly, or just having gaining advantage be much harder in a sit down game.

That thought leads nicely in to why Extra Attack feels so important. In general most attacks are going to be made with a 40% to 80%? hit chance? If you get 2 rolls of the dice (Extra Attack sans Adv., or one attack with Adv.), that's 64% to 96% chance of doing damage with a smaller chance of doing double damage with Extra Attack. Which means most turns the martial will have done something if they took the attack action. Which leads to another thought, seeing more (or even some, since I can't think of any non-spell example) abilities that can be used on a miss or near miss attack. They wouldn't add to peak output in a turn, but they reduce the odds of the turn overall being wasted. These would likely slot in nicely for the Fighter (at least if you assume their flavor as weapon master), but can easily make sense to some varying degree on most martials.

Right; two attacks is equal to one adv attack when it comes to "chance to hit at least once." And the rogue can even spend a bonus action to gain advantage.

But that means
- they don't get to use their bonus action for Cunning Action, which is the basis of their defense, mobility...like the entire rest of their class
- they need to spend their action and bonus just to "break even" with a class that has extra attack
- and in reality, it's not even. Extra attack is pretty likely to give two hits, and with something like ss or gwm, either hit is going to be pretty close to what sa is giving

In my mind, the final word on rogues is the only thing they bring to combat is single target damage. They don't have any support options, they can't tank, they can't heal, they can't AoE, they can't CC. And the damage they do bring is mediocre. That's not a good place to be.

As a final note, full casters don't stack nearly as well as you would think with multi-classing. In practice the combined caster level for spell slots when multi-classing is actually a nerf on full casters. Without proper upcasting those additional higher level slots you don't have spells for aren't nearly as powerful as the many additional lower level slots you would logically get if you didn't have that multi-classing mechanic.

I really struggle to call something a nerf when the comparison point is something you've entire made up. Casters get something by taking levels in another casting class. Martials get nothing. That's what matters.

[JellyPooga]

Rogues are an interesting beast. I haven't played one in a sit down game, my experience with them is mostly Solasta, BG3, and my own experimentations. They seem to preform really well when they can get advantage (which they can pretty easily generate through bonus action hiding in the video games), so I wonder how much them feeling bad is them either being played badly, or just having gaining advantage be much harder in a sit down game.

I find this interesting because having played Rogues tabletop a lot (more than any other Classes combined), I don't have the experience of finding myself looking for Extra Attack, per se. As I mentioned upthread, I think a redesigned Rogue would do better leaning away from Sneak Attack being one-big-hit and towards a multi-attack, martial control thing, but the 5e Rogue does just fine as is. In a game where damage is king, like in a CRPG, yes, the Rogue needs to be able to generate a little bit of cheese; break that verisimilitude by allowing a little bit more combat hiding than really flies under the radar, allow certain item interactions to give you a bit more advantage even when it doesn't really make a lot of sense when a CPU isn't involved...but that's because it's a computer game and the potential for a Class that relies heavily on both Player and GM buy-in, as it pertains to interpretation and creativity is somewhat more limited.

Rogue is not a numbers class. If you want to deal a lot of damage, Rogue is not your go-to. Sneak Attack isn't about outpacing anyone in terms of damage, it's about keeping pace; a baseline. The Class isn't supposed to be dealing much, if any, more than that outside of certain specific subclasses, but I think even those fail because the chassis isn't geared properly for it (looking at you, Assassin). That's another discussion though. It seems to me that the Rogue is supposed to be is a survivor with good non-AC defence in the form of Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion, that utilises that aspect to leverage their subclass-given niche (e.g. the Thief is good with items and terrain, the Arcane Trickster lays down magical smack, etc.). This makes them extremely flexible in the right hands, but lacking in the damage department. It's a safe bet that if your Rogue is just sitting there bopping one mook per turn with Sneak Attack, they're probably doing something wrong; it's the equivalent of the Wizard spamming Firebolt instead of using their spell slots; yeah, it's doing something and it's kind of useful, but it's not really living up to the Classes potential and the Player of that character is probably missing out on a vital aspect of what it means to play that Class. In the Rogues case, player ingenuity/creativity and GM buy-in on skill use in particular is key to the Class being effective, in much the same way that the Warlock and Monk rely on the game getting good use of Short Rests.

This ties to the OP somewhat too; should Extra Attack (and its facsimiles) stack? *Shrugs* yeah, I suppose you can if you want. Nothing is going to break too hard if you do. But are you looking at the problem from the wrong angle? Are you missing the wood for the trees and looking at the Classes Cantrips instead of their Spell Slots? For the Fighter, everything is about having more attacks and it's why they get additional attacks at higher levels; their whole class is predicated around it as "This is What the Class Does" with features triggering off of their use of those attacks. But what about the Barbarian? They're just a big ol' damage dealing meat-shield, right? Well, no. Not really. Barbarians are about taking damage, not dealing it. They're about literally using their Strength and physique in combat more than they are about dishing out the hurt. Look at the suite; advantage on Str checks and extra movement is a baseline requirement for grappling and moving heavy things; a Barbarian that doesn't flip at least one table, hurl a massive boulder or otherwise perform some impressive feat of physical might per session is doing it wrong just as much as a Paladin that isn't using Smite is! Does the Barbarian really need a 3rd attack to do this? They're not going to say no if it's offered on a plate, but they already have very reliable accuracy with Reckless Attack and using one attack to do their Fun Thing^TM and one to do some damage is plenty.

tl;dr - Extra Attack is a Cantrip. A good Cantrip, like Eldritch Blast is, but a Cantrip nonetheless. It's not going to break the game, whichever way you deal it, but looking at what else the Classes that get it have on offer is more valuable than asking how much more this most basic of basic features can do for you.

[Theodoxus]

If the game was built around only two types of classes, melee vs ranged, then melee could be built in different directions, but each class would have the same basic chassis in regards to the number of attacks they get.

If your melee classes were essentially Guardian (Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger [primarily with tanking pet] for example) with high armor and baseline damage, and their attacks had a taunting rider (either like the Marking mechanic, or even just forced stickiness with anything they attacked) the actual damage they bring doesn't matter as much (in fact, the lower the damage they do, the better, since they'd be essentially kill stealing, so extra damage to a single target is less optimal).

Then Skirmishers (Barbarian, Monk, or Rogue for example) have lower armor but higher single target damage, with either flurry or berserking extra attacks, and/or weapon tricks that generate status effects (stun, KO, stagger, hamstring, etc.) The skirmishers would also have the ability to snap others out of similar effects, so if a PC was Mesmerized, Held, Mind Controlled, etc. the skirmisher would be able to spend a turn undoing the effect, regardless of it if was magical or mundane. Think like undoing the Sleep spell, but for all effects. This should alleviate the downsides of poor Wisdom saves should they not be revamped.

The Ranged classes would be divided into Controllers and Support; basically Sorcs and Wizards vs Bards and Clerics, with Druids and Warlocks being the hybrids between the two (and really all 4 if built for it).

I'm just using the 5E classes as examples, if I were redoing the whole thing, I'd probably just have 4 classes and a ton of subclasses that muddied the waters by mixing types.

[GeneralVryth]

My preferred solution here is for all classes to be short rest or even encounter-based. That way there would be no pressure on the DM to run 7 medium encounters in order to drain the characters for the big encounter.

That's not ideal either, because you end up with more samey feeling classes. The variety is part of what make the classes feel different and interesting between each other. The ideal (besides some slightly re-tuned abilities, to give short rests a little more broad value), is campaign guidance that makes short/long rests stay in rough balance with each, and varied adventure day lengths and combat lengths, which should allow different classes to shine in different situations.The variety in encounter and day length is important. Otherwise there is usually going to be a subset of classes that are best at the standard encounter.

Right; two attacks is equal to one adv attack when it comes to "chance to hit at least once." And the rogue can even spend a bonus action to gain advantage.

But that means
- they don't get to use their bonus action for Cunning Action, which is the basis of their defense, mobility...like the entire rest of their class
- they need to spend their action and bonus just to "break even" with a class that has extra attack
- and in reality, it's not even. Extra attack is pretty likely to give two hits, and with something like ss or gwm, either hit is going to be pretty close to what sa is giving

In my mind, the final word on rogues is the only thing they bring to combat is single target damage. They don't have any support options, they can't tank, they can't heal, they can't AoE, they can't CC. And the damage they do bring is mediocre. That's not a good place to be.

They shouldn't always need to spend their bonus action to have that advantage (shooting from hidden etc... shouldn't always reveal you). I do agree they need something though. They need their equivalent of the Monk's Stunning Strike (rogues role in combat should be most similar to a Monk's, more of skirmisher dealing with targeted threats), as well as some other tricks for affecting the flow of combat without doing more damage or being another meat shield. Cunning Strike from the 5.5 Playtest packet is clearly a nod towards this (though rogues may need more).

I really struggle to call something a nerf when the comparison point is something you've entire made up. Casters get something by taking levels in another casting class. Martials get nothing. That's what matters.

It's not made up though. If you didn't have the spellcasting section in the mutliclass section, the most logical approach would be each spellcasting class would have its own progression and own batch of spell slots (whether or not the slots could be shared between classes would be an interesting debate).

In general if you deleted the entire Class Features section you would get:

Extra Attack: Still wouldn't stack because it says you can make 2 attacks with an action, not that you get +1 attacks with your attack action.
Unarmored Defense: Choose which Unarmored Defense you want to use (not stacking them together).

Channel Divinity: Each class has its own Channel Divnities and use, with debate on whether uses can be used cross class.

Spellcasting: Each class would get its own spellcasting progress, with debate on whether slots can be shared cross class.

Your specific point in the case really isn't true. There is never anything special given by multi-classing (beyond the reduced Proficiencies section), you always get 1 level of a class. That's true for martials or spellcasters, the difference the multi-classing rules make is that spellcasters instead of collecting lots of low level slots, get fewer higher level slots that they can't use nearly as effectively as a single class caster. None of the changes the need for martial buffs at a higher level or the argument that perhaps there should be some kind of martial generalized progression. But viewing the spellcasting multiclass rules as some kind of special buff for casters is just wrong.

Rogue is not a numbers class. If you want to deal a lot of damage, Rogue is not your go-to. Sneak Attack isn't about outpacing anyone in terms of damage, it's about keeping pace; a baseline. The Class isn't supposed to be dealing much, if any, more than that outside of certain specific subclasses, but I think even those fail because the chassis isn't geared properly for it (looking at you, Assassin). That's another discussion though. It seems to me that the Rogue is supposed to be is a survivor with good non-AC defence in the form of Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion, that utilises that aspect to leverage their subclass-given niche (e.g. the Thief is good with items and terrain, the Arcane Trickster lays down magical smack, etc.). This makes them extremely flexible in the right hands, but lacking in the damage department. It's a safe bet that if your Rogue is just sitting there bopping one mook per turn with Sneak Attack, they're probably doing something wrong; it's the equivalent of the Wizard spamming Firebolt instead of using their spell slots; yeah, it's doing something and it's kind of useful, but it's not really living up to the Classes potential and the Player of that character is probably missing out on a vital aspect of what it means to play that Class. In the Rogues case, player ingenuity/creativity and GM buy-in on skill use in particular is key to the Class being effective, in much the same way that the Warlock and Monk rely on the game getting good use of Short Rests.

I think this perspective on the Rogue is right, though I wouldn't classify reliably using Sneak Attack, as the same as a Wizard spamming Firebolt. Firebolt is a Wizards fallback option when they don't want to burn resources. Rogues don't have much resources to burn (in fact they have the least amount of any class), their is about being in or setting up the right situations so they, or others can be at their best. Using Sneak Attack with advantage should be a Rogue doing close to their best damage, not in the default fallback.

[Skrum]

That's not ideal either, because you end up with more samey feeling classes. The variety is part of what make the classes feel different and interesting between each other. The ideal (besides some slightly re-tuned abilities, to give short rests a little more broad value), is campaign guidance that makes short/long rests stay in rough balance with each, and varied adventure day lengths and combat lengths, which should allow different classes to shine in different situations.The variety in encounter and day length is important. Otherwise there is usually going to be a subset of classes that are best at the standard encounter.

I think there's plenty of ways to keep the classes feeling very different while still putting them on more equal footing resource-wise. Full casters don't need spell slots. They could have spell points that recover on a short rest. That would give them a huge amount of flexibility while still throttling their ability to blow an entire day's worth of resources in one encounter.

Martial classes, both thematically and for mechanical balance, need some kind of maneuver system. They need to have powerful abilities that can act as "buttons to press" instead of just endlessly using the attack action (and simply crossing their fingers when it's not their turn). Tome of Battle was a huge step in the right direction for martials, and it's a shame 5e forgot all about it.

Both of these ideas would work extremely well on a short rest or even encounter basis, and I think they'd feel very different in play.

It's not made up though. If you didn't have the spellcasting section in the mutliclass section, the most logical approach would be each spellcasting class would have its own progression and own batch of spell slots (whether or not the slots could be shared between classes would be an interesting debate).

I mean...those rules do exist though lol.

But viewing the spellcasting multiclass rules as some kind of special buff for casters is just wrong.

Wizards progress their spell slots if they take a level in cleric, on top of getting whatever the class abilities and proficiencies of the cleric. Spell casting progression is such that a spellcaster gains at 1 or 2 spell slots *at every level.* A wizard 8 who takes a level of cleric gains 2 spell slots (1 4th and 1 5th). Are you saying it would be superior for them to gain 2 1st level slots? Granted, many levels give 1 - but I'd rather have 1 3rd, 4th, or 5th (etc.) level slot than 2 1sts.

A barb who takes a level of fighter gets fighter class abilities and proficiencies. Nothing else.

-snip- but responding to the idea of creative players and the creative playstyle

This is in no small part a personal preference thing, but I do not like this style of play. I do not like rules-lite systems. It drives me crazy when my character's effectiveness comes down to my personal ability (or the players' ability) to hit a persuasion check with the DM and convince them what I'm doing is cool and balanced. That's simply not what I play RPG's for.

And I *really* don't like when that kind of class is in the same game with a more rules-heavy class like fighter or wizard. In fact, they flatly don't belong together. The fighter is making their mechanically-allotted 3 attacks a turn, the wizard creates an effect as described by <Hunger of Hadar, what have you>, and then the rogue is like "I want to grab his cape and stab my dagger though it and pin it to the ground so he can't move." "Uhh ok make an acrobatics check." That would bug me as a fellow player, it would bug me as a DM that I have to constantly adjudicate these actions...like everything about it lol.

I'm sure you have a ton of fun doing this kind of stuff, and at the right table, I'm sure even I could have fun with it. But the fact that you responded to "rogues are weak" with "well if you pretend they're not..." just confirms to me that they are weak.

[Psyren]

I think just giving Rogues Extra Attack would be a bit too strong personally. What I'd be more in favor of is them getting either TWF, Dueling, Blind Fighting or Archery fighting style without having to multiclass.

Each martial class gets its own flavour of "better weapon damage".

For Fighters, it's multiple iterations of Extra Attack.

For Barbarians, it's Rage damage and Brutal Critical (yes, I know Brutal Critical sucks)

For Rogues, it's Sneak Attack

For Monks, it's Martial Arts damage dice and Flurry of Blows


Paladins get Divine Smite and Improved Divine Smite, meanwhile Rangers get nothing because **** 'em, apparently.

Rangers' thing is sort of Hunter's Mark/Conjure Barrage/Conjure Volley, but as it stands we have no idea how effective the final version of those will be.

[JellyPooga]

This is in no small part a personal preference thing, but I do not like this style of play. I do not like rules-lite systems. It drives me crazy when my character's effectiveness comes down to my personal ability (or the players' ability) to hit a persuasion check with the DM and convince them what I'm doing is cool and balanced. That's simply not what I play RPG's for.

And I *really* don't like when that kind of class is in the same game with a more rules-heavy class like fighter or wizard. In fact, they flatly don't belong together. The fighter is making their mechanically-allotted 3 attacks a turn, the wizard creates an effect as described by <Hunger of Hadar, what have you>, and then the rogue is like "I want to grab his cape and stab my dagger though it and pin it to the ground so he can't move." "Uhh ok make an acrobatics check." That would bug me as a fellow player, it would bug me as a DM that I have to constantly adjudicate these actions...like everything about it lol.

I'm sure you have a ton of fun doing this kind of stuff, and at the right table, I'm sure even I could have fun with it. But the fact that you responded to "rogues are weak" with "well if you pretend they're not..." just confirms to me that they are weak.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by creative play and where Rogues fit into it. Yes, I enjoy rules-lite and narrative driven games, but the way the Rogue interacts in 5e D&D is not quite the same as those games. Where and how the Rogue functions is in being able to engage the rules of the game in an advantageous way that other Classes can, but tend not to. As I said in my post, the chassis of the Rogue is specialised toward survival and baseline damage and their function/role as a character comes mostly from their subclass. Take the Thief, for example. Fast Hands allows the Rogue to Use an Object as a bonus action. From guides and videos I've seen, most people miss the glaring strength of this that's right there in the description of what that Action actually does and I think they do so because they're thinking about what they can do with it that isn't dependent on circumstance and GM buy-in; i.e. what's on the equipment list. Taken that way, in isolation, it's very limited and not very strong. If, however, you look at its potential to interact with the environment, Fast Hands turns every object in every scene into not only a weapon, but a tool to be used in a variety of ways. It probably shouldn't take a skill check to turn a table on it's side, but it is an Action (the Use an Object Action to be precise). Pulling levers, closing doors, extinguishing flames...these are all things that can be done as part of a move, but to do more than one in a turn takes an Action and when you bear in mind that drawing a weapon or spell component is also considered one of these object interactions and as such why they are largely ignored, you begin to see why they tend not to be done by most characters/players.

However, these things are and always have been there for anyone to use. The Thief just does it better. Not because of their skills or because the GM is making up weird DCs and rules for throwing sand in peoples eyes or stabbing cloaks to the ground or the like, but simply because they get to do it as a bonus action as well as getting in their baseline damage from Sneak Attack. Largely speaking and in my experience, this isn't the GM having to make up rules effects on the fly beyond some very simple environmental effects such as light/darkness, difficult terrain and so forth, but their use is predicated on the GM willing to have the circumstances of the encounter be reactive to the players interaction with it. For a player that enjoys engagement with the scene and a GM that enjoys players interacting with the environments they create, it's potentially a very powerful feature that navigates around the numbers game of dealing damage, which as you've pointed out yourself, the Rogue isn't very good at. The Rogue is designed to be reactive to their circumstance more than they're expected to be proactive based on proscribed features; there's no spell or ability that says "you can turn a table over to create cover as a bonus action 1/Short Rest" because there won't be a table in every scenario.

Hope that explains my position better.

[GeneralVryth]

I think there's plenty of ways to keep the classes feeling very different while still putting them on more equal footing resource-wise. Full casters don't need spell slots. They could have spell points that recover on a short rest. That would give them a huge amount of flexibility while still throttling their ability to blow an entire day's worth of resources in one encounter.

Martial classes, both thematically and for mechanical balance, need some kind of maneuver system. They need to have powerful abilities that can act as "buttons to press" instead of just endlessly using the attack action (and simply crossing their fingers when it's not their turn). Tome of Battle was a huge step in the right direction for martials, and it's a shame 5e forgot all about it.

Both of these ideas would work extremely well on a short rest or even encounter basis, and I think they'd feel very different in play.

Not as many as you would think. You basically have 2 metrics, how fungible the resources are (basically can they be put to lots of different uses or just 1), and how often they are restored. Everything falls on those 2 spectrums. If you mix and match you get the following base combinations:

Non-resource based power. (Rogues)
Fungible resources that return on short rests. (Monks)
Fungible resources that return on long rests. (Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, Artificers)
Non-Fungible resources that return on short rests. (Fighters, highlighted by Battlemasters)
Non-Fungible resources that return on long rests. (Barbarians)

And you can have classes that may have a mix:
Primarily Fungible resources that return on long rests, and some Non-Fungible resources that return on short rests. (Druids)
Primarily Fungible resources that return on long rests, and some Fungible resources that return on short rests. (Bards)
Primarily Fungible resources that return on short rests and some Non-Fungible resources that return on long rests. (Warlocks)

What you are suggesting, is essentially removing 3 of the 5 base options (no long rest resources, and no non-resources option) which just leaves you moving up and down the fungibility axis for rest resources, which is going to make the classes feel a lot more samey. The better solution (besides better short rest/long rest balance) would be to adjust where some classes sit in the above chart to be more short rest focuses (it's notable you have 6ish classes sitting in one category though arguably it should 3 in one field 3 in a different field that has a notable non-resource section). Making the Sorcerer a short rest caster using sorcery points, would be a solid starting point. I have also argued for Druids to be more Warlock like for the same reason. Maybe Rangers should be more Monk-like using a kind of short rest ki system to power a combination of spells and abilities. Those would all help the balance while keeping the variety.

All of that though completely ignores the concept of spell casters and martials. The issue is that it's easier to come up with non-verisimilitude breaking resources that are long rest restored and fungible for casters (spell slots/points) than it is for martials. Rage I think is the only example, of a martial long-rest resource I don't think it's even that good of one in the non-verisimilitude breaking sense.

Real question, can you think of any feat of strength, dexterity, combat or what have you, that is both non-magical and makes sense to only be usable X times per day?

I mean...those rules do exist though lol.

Whether or not the rules exist isn't the point, the point is judging the impact of the rule by comparing what would happen if it didn't exist.

Wizards progress their spell slots if they take a level in cleric, on top of getting whatever the class abilities and proficiencies of the cleric. Spell casting progression is such that a spellcaster gains at 1 or 2 spell slots *at every level.* A wizard 8 who takes a level of cleric gains 2 spell slots (1 4th and 1 5th). Are you saying it would be superior for them to gain 2 1st level slots? Granted, many levels give 1 - but I'd rather have 1 3rd, 4th, or 5th (etc.) level slot than 2 1sts.

A barb who takes a level of fighter gets fighter class abilities and proficiencies. Nothing else.

The Wizard 8/Cleric 1 is one of the most extreme examples. On the other end you Wizard 11/Cleric 1 where the difference is getting no spell slots, versus 2 level 1 spell slots. Not to mention what happens when you start doing things like Wizard 11/Cleric 3 or true 5/5 splits. And a 5th level slot is rarely better than a 4th level slot if you don't know any 5th level spells. The point though is getting 1 level of Cleric means you are getting 1 level of spell casting capacity no matter what you are multi-classing from. That is coming from the Cleric level and has nothing to do with your previous levels. The only difference the multi-classing rules make is whether that level's spellcasting increase would come from the Cleric's chart or some shared chart. Whether or not the shared slot chart is a buff or nerf depends a great deal on what you want the slots for and whether they can be shared amongst your classes.

[Rukelnikov]

Real question, can you think of any feat of strength, dexterity, combat or what have you, that is both non-magical and makes sense to only be usable X times per day?

The only category that comes to mind right now would be feats of endurance, like carrying or pulling a very heavy object for many hours, or running at fast pace for a couple hours like in a marathon. It makes sense for me that someone is capable of doing such a thing but only once a day.

[JackPhoenix]

The only category that comes to mind right now would be feats of endurance, like carrying or pulling a very heavy object for many hours, or running at fast pace for a couple hours like in a marathon. It makes sense for me that someone is capable of doing such a thing but only once a day.

That's still better covered by exhaustion, because "That was exhausting, now I'll be worse at everything until I rest, but I can *try* to do that again if I really have to" is better fit than "That was exhausting, I can't do that again today no matter what, but it has absolutely no impact on my performance otherwise".

[KorvinStarmast]

I would love to see rogues reinvented as primarily using skill tricks in combat. Allow them to specialize in any stat and be viable because it's more focused on what skills you want to use.

All that requires is a complete rewrite of the class. Suggest you draft one and mail it in. (Or Play test it).
Or, post it on the homebrew forum at GitP and see what feedback you get.

[Skrum]

Real question, can you think of any feat of strength, dexterity, combat or what have you, that is both non-magical and makes sense to only be usable X times per day?

This is exactly why I would prefer if most/all powers were on a short rest or even encounter-based recovery. 1) character power is more predictable for the DM as characters would almost always have their abilities ready, and 2) it better reflects, as you note, the reality of physical feats of prowess. Maybe not repeatable every round, but certainly repeatable as soon as the fighter gets a breather. I would bring magic in-line with this for reason 1 and for 3) the classes would be better balanced

Whether or not the rules exist isn't the point, the point is judging the impact of the rule by comparing what would happen if it didn't exist.

I really don't understand what you're getting at with this. You're comparing existing rules to theoretical rules (that aren't even representative of a common homebrew AFAIK). Martials get nothing from multiclassing in terms of stacking. Casters get something. You saying "well they should be getting more*" is entirely beside the point.

The Wizard 8/Cleric 1 is one of the most extreme examples. On the other end you Wizard 11/Cleric 1 where the difference is getting no spell slots, versus 2 level 1 spell slots. Not to mention what happens when you start doing things like Wizard 11/Cleric 3 or true 5/5 splits. And a 5th level slot is rarely better than a 4th level slot if you don't know any 5th level spells. The point though is getting 1 level of Cleric means you are getting 1 level of spell casting capacity no matter what you are multi-classing from. That is coming from the Cleric level and has nothing to do with your previous levels. The only difference the multi-classing rules make is whether that level's spellcasting increase would come from the Cleric's chart or some shared chart. Whether or not the shared slot chart is a buff or nerf depends a great deal on what you want the slots for and whether they can be shared amongst your classes.

*is it actually more??? Let's see!

1: +2 1st
2: +1 1st
3: +1 1st, +2 2nd
4: +1 2nd
5: +2 3rd
6: +1 3rd
7: +1 4th
8: +1 4th
9: +1 4th, +1 5th
10: +1 5th
11: +1 6th
12: none
13: +1 7th
14: none
15: +1 8th
16: none
17: +1 9th
18: +1 5th
19: +1 6th
20: +1 7th

Yeah I stand by what I said...I'd rather continue the base progression of casting than "restart", except maybe with very specialized builds. I'm not seeing an obvious place where restarting would be beneficial. At level 12, where nothing is gained? Sure, that specific level is better to get 2 1st level slots. But I'd rather get the 7th level slot at 13 than the extra 1st level slots. Why? At that level, I have plenty of slots. I'm not worried about running out of utility slots. And the option to upcast certain things is pretty nice. And worst comes to worst? I upcast my silvery barbs or counterspell or whatever out of a very high level slot.

Is continual progression making wizard 11 cleric 5 worse? Nominally, yes. Spells known are the same. In current system, that character has 18 spell slots going up to 8th level. In your system, they'd have 25 slots but up to 6th level. But 18 spell slots is 18 spell slots - plenty of spell slots!! Getting more of a resources you already have a ton of bumps into marginal improvement.

[Skrum]

Hope that explains my position better.

It does, but I still think it's a very small thing to hang your hat on. For starters, the buy-in and extra prep on the DM's part (especially if using a battle grid where everything is more explicit and mapped out) is not insignificant. Further, this kind of play is great for "ballroom brawls" and other, generally low-level content against other humanoids. Flipping over tables for cover and taking advantage of shadows is pretty marginal/non at all effective against...demons, dragons, aboleth, beholder, etc.

I've played BG3 for a ridiculous amount of hours in the past few months. My appreciation for this kind of play has skyrocketed, and I plan to incorporate it into my future DMing endeavors. But I still think rogue is the weak - my pick for the weakest class - and that includes *in bg3* that is better for this kind of reactive play than the majority of TT games.

[Rukelnikov]

That's still better covered by exhaustion, because "That was exhausting, now I'll be worse at everything until I rest, but I can *try* to do that again if I really have to" is better fit than "That was exhausting, I can't do that again today no matter what, but it has absolutely no impact on my performance otherwise".

Yeah, but its still valid, those are tasks that are "mundane" that one cannot perform more than once a day which was the question.

[clash]

All that requires is a complete rewrite of the class. Suggest you draft one and mail it in. (Or Play test it).
Or, post it on the homebrew forum at GitP and see what feedback you get.

I would definitely do that but I'm using to busy adding new features to my homebrew system instead. I might take a swing at it anyways. I'll let you know

[GeneralVryth]

This is exactly why I would prefer if most/all powers were on a short rest or even encounter-based recovery. 1) character power is more predictable for the DM as characters would almost always have their abilities ready, and 2) it better reflects, as you note, the reality of physical feats of prowess. Maybe not repeatable every round, but certainly repeatable as soon as the fighter gets a breather. I would bring magic in-line with this for reason 1 and for 3) the classes would be better balanced

You know there was a D&D edition that did what you describe. 4e, and my understanding is 5e has solidly trounced it in terms of popularity. It's possible when designing games in general to be too balanced, and the D&D player base has straight up proven it's okay with or prefers a level of imbalance if it means they get more variety with their characters. So the trick becomes creating that variety while keeping it as balanced as possible and not breaking verisimilitude too badly. Which brings me back to my chart from before and the question about long rest, non-magical resources. The only ones I can think would be more narrative focused like calling in a favor, or some kind of Schrodinger's tool that a character picked up in the past and it becomes what it needs to be now. I am not sure either of those work that great.

So that brings us back to trying to modify things so the short/long rest balance is better, both in the classes and DM guidance. Sorcerers using Spell Points on a short rest is easy (I keep thinking they should be Spell Points in general, I never thought much about the rest cycle). I suggested a Warlock-like Druid class (and provided an example starting point in another thread). Converting 1 of the Ranger, Paladin, and Artificer to some kind of short rest alternative to their spell slots would be ideal, but I am not sure which one would work best, and that may be the most involved conversion.

I really don't understand what you're getting at with this. You're comparing existing rules to theoretical rules (that aren't even representative of a common homebrew AFAIK). Martials get nothing from multiclassing in terms of stacking. Casters get something. You saying "well they should be getting more*" is entirely beside the point.

It's not theoretical rules. It's assessing the value of something by comparing the cases with and without it. It would be like comparing a Fighter class without the Extra Attack progression to the standard Fight class to see how much difference the Extra Attack progression makes on its damage. The spellcasting multi-class changes what you get when multi-classing into a full caster. The nature of that change as a buff, nerf, or something else is informative. You clearly see it as a buff, hence why you think casters get some special positive treatment.

*is it actually more??? Let's see!

[shrinking progression for space]

Yeah I stand by what I said...I'd rather continue the base progression of casting than "restart", except maybe with very specialized builds. I'm not seeing an obvious place where restarting would be beneficial. At level 12, where nothing is gained? Sure, that specific level is better to get 2 1st level slots. But I'd rather get the 7th level slot at 13 than the extra 1st level slots. Why? At that level, I have plenty of slots. I'm not worried about running out of utility slots. And the option to upcast certain things is pretty nice. And worst comes to worst? I upcast my silvery barbs or counterspell or whatever out of a very high level slot.

Is continual progression making wizard 11 cleric 5 worse? Nominally, yes. Spells known are the same. In current system, that character has 18 spell slots going up to 8th level. In your system, they'd have 25 slots but up to 6th level. But 18 spell slots is 18 spell slots - plenty of spell slots!! Getting more of a resources you already have a ton of bumps into marginal improvement.

You may be right the multi-classing rules on spellcasting on average are more of a net buff than nerf. I am still on the fence, but's not as clear cut as I thought. The locked in ability to share spell slots is definitely a buff though. That's what makes Sorcadins really possible. Which makes me wonder if there is something to the reverse of this thread title. What if Extra attack still didn't stack (though it did have some alternative bonus if you had more than 1 instance), and spell casters didn't have a shared slot progression? By that I mean each caster has its own spell slots and those can't be used to fuel the abilities of another class. Warlock Pact slots also wouldn't be usable to fuel the spells or abilities of another class. It would probably be a bit of a housekeeping for PCs that were built as dual fullcasters, but it might make multi-classing more balanced in general, and it would certainly be more consistent. Something may still need to be done with the 1st 1 to 3 levels of class being more valuable on average encouraging dips.

[Pex]

The only thing wrong with stacking Extra Attack is it means a 10th level 5/5 warrior/warrior gets 3 attacks where a single class fighter has to wait until 11th level. Fix that discrepancy and all is well. The easiest solution is give fighters their third attack at 10th level. It won't be that difficult to balance in reference to the other warrior classes if any correction is needed. Ignore spellcasters. This doesn't affect them at all.

I do like the idea of stacking the number of attacks by total character level similar to the idea of stacking spell slots when multiclassing spellcasters or single class spellcasters. Then just give 11th level fighters something else that's Nice.

[Theodoxus]

The only thing wrong with stacking Extra Attack is it means a 10th level 5/5 warrior/warrior gets 3 attacks where a single class fighter has to wait until 11th level. Fix that discrepancy and all is well. The easiest solution is give fighters their third attack at 10th level. It won't be that difficult to balance in reference to the other warrior classes if any correction is needed. Ignore spellcasters. This doesn't affect them at all.

I do like the idea of stacking the number of attacks by total character level similar to the idea of stacking spell slots when multiclassing spellcasters or single class spellcasters. Then just give 11th level fighters something else that's Nice.

Seems the easiest fix is to move the 10th level subclass abilities to 11 and the EA at 11 to 10th... Whether that's balanced or not, I don't know, but it certainly would be easiest.

[Skrum]

You know there was a D&D edition that did what you describe. 4e, and my understanding is 5e has solidly trounced it in terms of popularity. It's possible when designing games in general to be too balanced, and the D&D player base has straight up proven it's okay with or prefers a level of imbalance if it means they get more variety with their characters.

While I have not played 4e extensively, my general thought is that 4e general unpopularity has caused WotC to run away from a lot of good ideas that 4e was on to.

Martial classes actually having a proper progression and powers that exceed "guy at the gym"? Yes please.

I simply refuse to believe that accomplishing the following is impossible, or that these goals are somehow at odds
1) a martial ability and power progression that ~keeps pace with spells up to level 20
2) unique and diverse character classes

IMO, I think gearing classes more towards short rest/encounter based recovery would be beneficial to accomplish the above two goals (and some others besides). But it is not a goal unto itself.

My back of the napkin ideas for each class?

Wizard = looks something like the psion from 3e. Runs on spell points, lots of spells known. I would favor spell points coming back on a short rest, and spell points would cover spells up to level 5ish. 6th and up spells would be more like warlock's mystic arcanum; know a handful of spells that can be cast 1/LR

Sorcerer = looks something like the wilder from 3e. Runs on spell points, few spells known, but can metamagic/overcast the spells for increased effect. Their t3 and t4 progression would come from more and more powerful ways to modify their spells

Cleric = basically a divine wizard, but would gain weapon and armor proficiency (as is custom) and would give up some spell points. They would keep channel divinity, which is a great feature. High level spell casting would be similar to wizard; they'd use "miracles" to perform great feats

Druid = wildshaper class. Would have limited spellcasting that looks kinda like current warlock (without mystic arcanum)

Bard = warlock-like spellcasting. Expand uses for bardic inspiration, bake more weapon and armor proficiency into the base class

Rogue = bring back the factotum!!!!

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barb, Monk = they'd all have their own class features (paladin is a particularly good example of a martial done right), and each would progress along a "martial path" a la Tome of Battle. Fighter would have access to the most/all schools, while the others would be more focused on schools that suit their class flavor. Paladin and Ranger would no longer have spells

Obviously I'm just spitballing. But none of these classes feel samey at all (well, except maybe for cleric and wizard), and there's plenty of room for them all to be powerful.

[GeneralVryth]

Seems the easiest fix is to move the 10th level subclass abilities to 11 and the EA at 11 to 10th... Whether that's balanced or not, I don't know, but it certainly would be easiest.

Agreed on this being the easiest solution. Balanced? Probably no. Within the margin of good enough? That's the question. I would be afraid of this making something like a 5/5/5/5 between Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger way too good compared to any one of those classes individually taken to 20 (or X really). In fact I wager this ends up with a 6/5 Fighter/Barbarian being extremely good, and adding 6 Paladin being the kiss on top to not requiring a full 20, but still getting 4 feats, 4 attacks, Paladin's aura, and Barbarian's rage (not mention 2 Fighting Styles, Action Surge, and probably 2 solid subclass abilities).

While I have not played 4e extensively, my general thought is that 4e general unpopularity has caused WotC to run away from a lot of good ideas that 4e was on to.

Martial classes actually having a proper progression and powers that exceed "guy at the gym"? Yes please.

I simply refuse to believe that accomplishing the following is impossible, or that these goals are somehow at odds
1) a martial ability and power progression that ~keeps pace with spells up to level 20
2) unique and diverse character classes

IMO, I think gearing classes more towards short rest/encounter based recovery would be beneficial to accomplish the above two goals (and some others besides). But it is not a goal unto itself.

What makes you think the ideas were good if the game was unpopular? As for the guy at the gym comparison, that's always been dumb. But within the realm of D&D I don't think you can go beyond Captain America as a human-ish character while being "non-magical" without really starting to break the verisimilitude of the game. Which means you are not going to get martial/non-magical abilities that directly compete with high level magic. At least not without homebrewing your own system, which I doubt would be widely popular.

Also, what is the point of a, "martial ability and power progression that ~keeps pace with spells up to level 20"? If you want the powers of a high level spell caster why not just play one? Why does their have to be a non-magical "Meteor Swarm" or "Shapechange" that any high level martial can access as a once per day ability? Balance in the realm of P&P RPGs, does not mean everyone has the same capabilities in all aspects of the game. It means everyone can meaningfully contribute and should have their own opportunities to shine. Which is usually best enabled by having a wide variety of resource systems, strengths, and weaknesses between classes. The more similar classes are the more likely it is to come up with a solved solution that is always better.

My back of the napkin ideas for each class?

Wizard = looks something like the psion from 3e. Runs on spell points, lots of spells known. I would favor spell points coming back on a short rest, and spell points would cover spells up to level 5ish. 6th and up spells would be more like warlock's mystic arcanum; know a handful of spells that can be cast 1/LR

Sorcerer = looks something like the wilder from 3e. Runs on spell points, few spells known, but can metamagic/overcast the spells for increased effect. Their t3 and t4 progression would come from more and more powerful ways to modify their spells

Cleric = basically a divine wizard, but would gain weapon and armor proficiency (as is custom) and would give up some spell points. They would keep channel divinity, which is a great feature. High level spell casting would be similar to wizard; they'd use "miracles" to perform great feats

Druid = wildshaper class. Would have limited spellcasting that looks kinda like current warlock (without mystic arcanum)

Bard = warlock-like spellcasting. Expand uses for bardic inspiration, bake more weapon and armor proficiency into the base class

Rogue = bring back the factotum!!!!

Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Barb, Monk = they'd all have their own class features (paladin is a particularly good example of a martial done right), and each would progress along a "martial path" a la Tome of Battle. Fighter would have access to the most/all schools, while the others would be more focused on schools that suit their class flavor. Paladin and Ranger would no longer have spells

Obviously I'm just spitballing. But none of these classes feel samey at all (well, except maybe for cleric and wizard), and there's plenty of room for them all to be powerful.

It's easy for them not to feel samey when you're just spitballing. It's a lot harder when trying to come up with specific mechanics. I suspect you martial path maneuver progression idea, right now is kind of like Schrodinger's Wizard. It can do everything because whatever spells it needs prepared, at least until it's forced to come with a specific build and list and then confronted with the unknown. Also, you dropped the Artificer and Warlock, do those no longer exist in your concept?

[Skrum]

It's easy for them not to feel samey when you're just spitballing. It's a lot harder when trying to come up with specific mechanics. I suspect you martial path maneuver progression idea, right now is kind of like Schrodinger's Wizard. It can do everything because whatever spells it needs prepared, at least until it's forced to come with a specific build and list and then confronted with the unknown. Also, you dropped the Artificer and Warlock, do those no longer exist in your concept?

Well, I'll give yah that, the devil is in the details.

To be clear, I'm not imagining a 17th level fighter doing their version of shapechange. Maneuvers/techniques would still be focused on combat, mostly damage, with rider effects that are kinda like current maneuvers.

Some save boosters (or ways to end conditions), some healing, maybe temporary hit points. Extra movement. That's what I have in mind; all stuff that's well within the purview of a martial class.

Large scale AoE, especially at range, that would still belong to spells. As would summons, teleportation, multi target crowd control, illusions, mind control....

[GeneralVryth]

Well, I'll give yah that, the devil is in the details.

To be clear, I'm not imagining a 17th level fighter doing their version of shapechange. Maneuvers/techniques would still be focused on combat, mostly damage, with rider effects that are kinda like current maneuvers.

Some save boosters (or ways to end conditions), some healing, maybe temporary hit points. Extra movement. That's what I have in mind; all stuff that's well within the purview of a martial class.

Large scale AoE, especially at range, that would still belong to spells. As would summons, teleportation, multi target crowd control, illusions, mind control....

So something like the current Battlemaster maneuvers, maybe spread across 3 tiers, with increased numeric strength as you go up tier? And you envision that I am guessing as a Fighter's primary power system, and maybe a secondary source of umph, for Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Monks, and Rogues? You don't think that could end up a little samey? There are literally hundreds of spells (though I think their numbers could and should be reduced, with improved upcasting, a model which could work for maneuvers), and it's not hard to find complaints on even on this forum of most characters of caster class X feeling samey because there is a large spell overlap (granted spell balance sucks but there is always going to be spells or abilities that are better, the difference is just a matter of degree).

The samey argument also ignores all of the described effects already exist amongst the classes in question. So what is is being added/changed here? If it's just making multi-classing more beneficial, why? Martials already have the strongest incentive to multi-class because their higher level abilities tend to suck. Fixing that is more important. Though if the multi-class spellcasting rules really are a benefit to spellcasters, the idea of getting rid of them is interesting.

[Psyren]

I personally think there's a middle ground between "each additional instance of Extra Attack does nothing" and "each additional instance of Extra Attack stacks." I'm dissatisfied with the former, but I think the latter is too much of an overcorrection.

[Skrum]

So something like the current Battlemaster maneuvers, maybe spread across 3 tiers, with increased numeric strength as you go up tier? And you envision that I am guessing as a Fighter's primary power system, and maybe a secondary source of umph, for Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Monks, and Rogues? You don't think that could end up a little samey?

Could, yeah (probably not for rogues though; they'd have their own "maneuver" system in the form of Inspiration/Cunning Actions).

I mean, lemme make the case for this from another angle -
Paladin is not the perfect class, but it's close. It gets good abilities well into t3 (less familiar with t4) making multiclassing a really tough choice, it's powerful in the ways it should be powerful, and it has weaknesses is just the way a class should to encourage team-based play. Ideally speaking, ALL classes would be like the paladin. Multiclassing should be a CHOICE in both ways: good reasons to stay in a class, and good reasons to go elsewhere, and lots of unique and cool abilities.

The other martial classes are undertuned and underwritten: they're (generally) too limited in what they can do and give way too few reasons to stay in the class. There is virtually *no reason to stay in barb beyond level 6 at most. Fighter is better, but that's strictly because of scaling extra attack. It's a good thing to get, but c'mon. They get nothing besides additional attacks. Ranger, yikes.

Spellcasters are on the other side. Spells are busted, and even cut down from their heights of 3e, still offer way too much benefit for too little downside. Further, the casters share way too many spells and it's way too easy to grab spells from other lists through things like backgrounds, feats, and magical races.

Warlock? Well that's a nerfed spellcaster alright - too nerfed. That said, I think they're on to something. More limited spellcasting with more invocation-like class features I think is a very promising model for both bringing casters into balance while creating distance between each other.

Overall, I want the classes to converge on paladin. Is that necessarily going to result in the classes feeling the same? Well I hope not. But I'd be willing to accept some marginal amount of sameness if it meant we didn't have 1st and 2nd class classes.

[Kane0]

My usual go-to is to give an ASI if a character doubles-up on extra attack.

[Psyren]

My usual go-to is to give an ASI if a character doubles-up on extra attack.

I think that's too powerful too. I could maybe see an extra 1st-level/background feat though.

[Skrum]

I think that's too powerful too. I could maybe see an extra 1st-level/background feat though.

Is it though? You're talking a minimum of level 10 of course. And it's two classes that get extra attack at 5...what "worst" case scenario, paladin 5 fighter 5? Level 10, that's at the absolute tail end of martial power and about to head into true caster dominance. An extra ASI is a non-factor.

[GeneralVryth]

Could, yeah (probably not for rogues though; they'd have their own "maneuver" system in the form of Inspiration/Cunning Actions).

I mean, lemme make the case for this from another angle -
Paladin is not the perfect class, but it's close. It gets good abilities well into t3 (less familiar with t4) making multiclassing a really tough choice, it's powerful in the ways it should be powerful, and it has weaknesses is just the way a class should to encourage team-based play. Ideally speaking, ALL classes would be like the paladin. Multiclassing should be a CHOICE in both ways: good reasons to stay in a class, and good reasons to go elsewhere, and lots of unique and cool abilities.

The other martial classes are undertuned and underwritten: they're (generally) too limited in what they can do and give way too few reasons to stay in the class. There is virtually *no reason to stay in barb beyond level 6 at most. Fighter is better, but that's strictly because of scaling extra attack. It's a good thing to get, but c'mon. They get nothing besides additional attacks. Ranger, yikes.

Spellcasters are on the other side. Spells are busted, and even cut down from their heights of 3e, still offer way too much benefit for too little downside. Further, the casters share way too many spells and it's way too easy to grab spells from other lists through things like backgrounds, feats, and magical races.

Warlock? Well that's a nerfed spellcaster alright - too nerfed. That said, I think they're on to something. More limited spellcasting with more invocation-like class features I think is a very promising model for both bringing casters into balance while creating distance between each other.

Overall, I want the classes to converge on paladin. Is that necessarily going to result in the classes feeling the same? Well I hope not. But I'd be willing to accept some marginal amount of sameness if it meant we didn't have 1st and 2nd class classes.

I actually agree with most of this. I don't think full casters in general are completely busted (though there are some spells that need to do, and general balance pass on spells would be good), but the rest I am on board with. I also, think pure class Paladins hit the spot pretty well. I think I would start with the following for the martials in terms of buffs.

Fighter: Indomitable should become Legendary Resistance. Add some Second Chance abilities (see below, though there is limited design space here), drop the 4th extra attack for some other capstone. Some kind of buff when using skills. More weapon master and less fighting man vibes.

Barbarian: I have fewer ideas here, I still don't get why Rage is a long rest ability, it feels like it should be short rest based. Some kind of damage on miss ability. Still would need some more noncombat stuff.

Rangers: Move them to some kind of Ki system (probably called focus) with a short rest recharge. The focus allowing them to use some spells (from a limited list), and also being used for battle master maneuver like options. Borrowing the improved Favored Enemy, and Favored Terrain ideas/approach from BG3 would also go well.

Rogues: I just don't know.

Monks: Really just need more damage, and better able to get short rests for Ki (though a couple additional options for Ki usage wouldn't hurt).

My usual go-to is to give an ASI if a character doubles-up on extra attack.

I will also second, I think this is too much as well. Though less I think than pure extra attack stacking.

I think that's too powerful too. I could maybe see an extra 1st-level/background feat though.

Maybe, but it should probably be related to attacks. One thing I have been thinking about recently is the game in general has been low in what I would call "Second Chance" abilities, basically things that happen when you fail at something. What if additional instances of extra gave you the ability to make another attack when one of yours missed, once per short rest. That's something that could stack without issue, and probably should just have 1 or 2 instances as part of the Fighter's basic class progression. Barbarians, being able to do their Str mod + rage mode damage on a miss 1 or 2 times per short rest would also feel natural I think.